EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Kyrgyzstan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Delay, Detention, Discrimination, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Refugee Status, Torture, Well-founded fear
The European Court of Human Rights found that extraditing a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnic origin from Russia to Kyrgyzstan would give rise to inhumane and degrading treatment prohibited by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It was also found that the repeated delays by the Russian authorities in hearing the applicant’s appeals against his detention in Russia constituted a violation of his article 5 para 4 rights to a speedy judicial decision on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention between January 2013 and January 2014.
Date: 16-04-2015
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Detention, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Race, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The case relates to a Sudanese national of Tunjur origin who claimed a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if expelled to Sudan on the grounds of his ethnic origin and supposed ties with the JEM, the rebels’ movement against the regime in Sudan.
Date: 15-04-2015
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Access to the labour market, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Race, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The case examines the allegations of a Sudanese national- member of a non-Arab tribe in Sudan- that his deportation to that country would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of his race and supposed links with the rebel movements in the country.
Date: 15-04-2015
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Race, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The court found that the removal of a Somali applicant to Italy under the Dublin Regulation would not result in a violation of article 3of the Convention and would not entail any violation of the rights set in article 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13.
Date: 13-01-2015
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Race, Refugee Status, Safe country of origin, Serious harm, Well-founded fear
The case examined the allegations of three applicants of Chechen origin that their deportation to Russia would place them in conditions amounting to inhumane and degrading treatment. Their allegations were based on the general situation of Chechens in Russia as well as on an individual risk of the first applicant because of his documentary work, recording the execution of villagers by the Russian federal troops.
The Court found that the deportation of the applicants to Russia would give rise to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment)...
Date: 20-01-2014
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Indirect refoulement, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The case examined the allegations of the applicants that their deportation to Moscow will entail a real risk of refoulement to Afghanistan where they fear treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Further, it examined the applicants’ complaints of a violation of their right to an effective remedy in conjunction with Article 3, invoking Article 13 of the Convention.
Date: 02-01-2013
Country of Applicant: Slovakia
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Race
The applicants were unlawfully detained and had no effective remedy to challenge their detention. There was a finding that they had been collectively expelled, given the context of their expulsion along with many others of the same nationality, and as their individual circumstances had not been adequately taken into consideration.
Date: 05-02-2002
Country of Applicant: Cyprus
Keywords: Armed conflict, Discrimination, Effective remedy (right to), Family unity (right to), Final decision, Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, International armed conflict, Nationality, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Religion
Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their property was also found by the Court.
Date: 10-05-2001
Country of Applicant: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Race
The application of a Bosnian Croat concerning the collective expulsions from Croatia to Bosnia-Hercegovina is found to be manifestly ill-founded and thus the application is inadmissible.
Date: 23-02-1999
Country of Applicant: Cyprus
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Armed conflict, Discrimination, Freedom of movement (right to), International armed conflict, Membership of a particular social group, Nationality, Race
Mrs Loizidou argued that the refusal by Turkish troops to allow her access to property she claimed to own in northern Cyprus violated her right to peaceful enjoyment of her property. The Court held that Turkey could be held responsible for what was a continuing violation of the right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Date: 18-12-1996
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- (-) Remove ECrtHR Case law filterECrtHR Case law
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Race filterRace
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 7
- Refugee Status 6
- Detention 5
- Effective remedy (right to) 5
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 5
- Well-founded fear 5
- Discrimination 4
- Country of origin 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Nationality 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Real risk 3
- Armed conflict 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- International armed conflict 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Access to the labour market 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Delay 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Final decision 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Religion 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Serious harm 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Cyprus 2
- Sudan 2
- Afghanistan 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Croatia 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Malawi 1
- Philippines 1
- Russia 1
- Slovakia 1
- Somalia 1
- United Kingdom 1
